SOPA/PIPA Wakes Up Internet Giants To Realize They Need To Be More Engaged In DC

from the unfortunate-reality dept

Earlier today it was announced that a new industry trade association representing large internet companies, called The Internet Association, is going to be launching this fall, with Google, Amazon, eBay and Facebook as the charter members. Part of the thinking behind this group stemmed from the realization of how little influence various internet companies had in DC when SOPA/PIPA came along last year -- and a concerted effort to change that.

Former Congressional staffer Michael Beckerman was officially named this morning as the organization's president. I got to meet with Beckerman last week and hear some of the details about the group. To be honest, I have very mixed feelings about all of this. I tend to believe that this group will be a force for good in supporting an open internet and related issues. Beckerman was quite frank about why this new group absolutely needs to be focused on supporting the views of the public (because unlike in some other industries, when an internet company diverges from the public interest, it's very easy for its users/customers to go elsewhere). One of the major concerns we discussed was where the interests of internet users and the large internet companies might diverge, and how this organization would deal with those situations. He was pretty adamant that if they're not doing a good job representing the public's interest as well, then the organization isn't doing its job. Hopefully that is true, but obviously it's a claim that deserves close scrutiny as this organization ramps up. Hopefully, Beckerman will model the organization on the success of organizations like CEA, who have built up a very strong reputation in recognizing that by fighting to protect consumers they do the best in the long run for the electronics companies they represent. CEA has a long history of putting consumers first on various issues (even when you could make the argument that their own members feel differently), and it's done well for itself. The Internet Association would do good to follow that lead.

So while I think that this organization is likely to be very helpful in various fights to protect the open internet, I'm a bit disappointed that the state of politics today means that something like this is even needed. And, as always, I worry about large industry players working towards efforts to maintain their position, rather than supporting actual innovation. We've certainly seen large companies who were once innovative later turn around and fight against disruption and defend the status quo. Hopefully that's not what will happen with the Internet Association. Beckerman appears to have a good grasp on the issues, so I'm encouraged by the idea that there will be an organization like this in DC, focused exclusively on internet-related issues, even as I'm disappointed that it's necessary.

One bit of advice, since I know many folks here will automatically be allergic to the idea of any sort of new DC-based trade group, even if it's likely to be fighting against groups that seek to harm the open internet: one way to hopefully avoid a bad result is to engage with this new group. Help them continue to fight the good fight by working with them, rather than automatically dismissing them. Beckerman definitely seems interested in engaging people well beyond just the companies that are members of the association (which, as I understand it, is looking for additional members), and hopefully the more he engages with people who have a personal interest in an open internet, the more he'll be able to help.

Easy to go elsewhere?

(because unlike in some other industries, when an internet company diverges from the public interest, it's very easy for its users/customers to go elsewhere)

Really? Are you seriously claiming that vendor lock-in is not a significant factor on the Internet? If you really believe that, please explain to me how you would go about switching from Facebook or Gmail to a competing service, in the hypothetical case that you should want to...

Re: Easy to go elsewhere?

facebook...you leave after putting a link to your personal blog or g+ (or another similar service) page.

gmail, just like you leave any other email service provider, you send out a mass email and setup an auto responder directing people to contact you at your new email addy.....

this has been done for decades now....if you didnt know this, many people use to change ISP's alot and thus change email addys alot because they thought like my father still does that a free email addy isnt professional...over the decades I have been doing this, I can tell you, I have helped hundreds if not thousands of people migrate email provider to email provider.....its really not that hard.....

there is no service online that cant be replaced with another.....

hell how did people change from myspace to facebook.....from your logic it couldnt happen it would be to hard.....

Re: Re: Easy to go elsewhere?

No, I'm not looking for glib, one-line answers. Answers like that to serious questions that require some real thought make you look stupid. (And incidentally, so does using profanity when discussing something serious.)

Try thinking about the ramifications for a minute or two. I'll give you a few hints:

What people do you tell to contact you there? How many people know about your current address/profile/whatever? What happens to anyone you forget to tell about the switch if they need to contact you?

What about other websites that you have an account with that are associated with that account? How many of those do you have? And how many of them use that account ID as your primary identity key? (For example, think about how you log in to PayPal.)

How would you move your historical data to the new service? Last I heard, Facebook was actively doing everything it can to make it difficult for you to automate that sort of work.

Re: Re: Re: Easy to go elsewhere?

'just use a different site' is the only answer. That is how we switched from MySpace, Friendster and so on. Your complaint is that its hard. Well boo hoo hoo, you have to make a new account and tell people about it, poor you.

What, do you want some magical bot script to switch you to a new network in a few seconds?

Re: Re: Re: Easy to go elsewhere?

Yes:
Send a note to your contacts with a URL to the new place. Same way you tell people a new mailing address or cellphone.

Copy paste the history to Word if you really think its worth keeping. But really, is it? probably not in the long run

Delete fucking everything from the old site's profile and keep it around for logins to other websites if you think its absolutely necessary, otherwise take ~5 mins and setup a new account/change some account settings on the existing.

Finally- ween yourself from apparent dependence upon social networks so you can be more agile and sophisticated online.

divide & conquer

I like the idea i read a while back (somewhere on techdirt, I believe) of Microsoft, Apple, and Google buying up the major music labels and then withdrawing them from the RIAA, since even their own self-serving interests are more in line with consumer interests than the interests of the labels. Then once the music labels are dealt with, focus on hollywood/MPAA!

Re: Re: Re: Easy to go elsewhere?

How about "There is no issue, you just haven't spent the requisite few minutes to learn how."? This is largely a solved problem. Even for the average user. For those with even a little basic perl under their belts, it hasn't been a common issue in over a decade.

Part of the thinking behind this group stemmed from the realization of how little influence various internet companies had in DC when SOPA/PIPA came along last year -- and a concerted effort to change that.

They have more influence than they realize. Just shutting down their services for a day causes major internet disruption.

ISPs have even more power. Imagine what would happen if the largest ISPs completely shut down for a day. Or disconnected the politicians proposing such laws.

The entertainment industry might have the government's ear, but the internet companies can pull the plug.

" Part of the thinking behind this group stemmed from the realization of how little influence various internet companies had in DC when SOPA/PIPA came along last year -- and a concerted effort to change that. "

I think that part of it also comes from where Google has been standing before. Google tried to play DC all secret, using money through various foundations and such to fund groups such as EFF to do their work for them. That isn't working, and the absence of Google particularly in the debate is seen as a big hole in discussions. Google can't hide out anymore.

It will be interesting to watch the funding levels from various sources of this group, I wouldn't be shocked to see this just be a Google mouth piece with a few dollars tossed in from other sources to call it "industry" rather than a singular company's shilling organization.

It will have competition

What did Beckerman say about how this new organization will fit in next to all of the existing lobbies that claim to represent Internet users and entrepreneurs: EFF, Public Knowledge, CDT, Free Press, Engine Advocacy, Disruptive Competition Project, and so on? It's never seemed that Washington has lacked for somebody to say "this is bad for an open Internet"; it just needs a greater willingness among elected officials to listen.

Re:

When hollywood trade groups throw money and influence around DC it is democracy.

When Internet/Tech trade groups ask to have a seat in the room where massive deals are going on that effect them (and us) that is obviously backroom suspicious evilness full of shadowy money and mouthpieces for despicable puppetmasters.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Easy to go elsewhere?

If we can't trust any multi-national, multi-billion dollar company to do what's in the best interest of the people I have no idea why governments let the MAFIAA claim to do just that and end up doing whatever they want.

Re: It will have competition

What did Beckerman say about how this new organization will fit in next to all of the existing lobbies that claim to represent Internet users and entrepreneurs: EFF, Public Knowledge, CDT, Free Press, Engine Advocacy, Disruptive Competition Project, and so on?

I asked that very question. The differences, as Beckerman explained it, were that (1) this would only be for larger internet companies and (2) would be a true trade association, rather than a "public interest" advocacy group or whatever. All of the ones you've listed above are more public interest groups, with the exception of Engine Advocacy, who represents small companies/entrepreneurs, and isn't a true trade association.

Mixed feelings

I think most of us had that same reaction. It sounds like a good thing, but if you take human nature, money, and power into consideration, then this has all the makings of a future tragedy.

On the surface; the combination of Google, Amazon, eBay, and Facebook should be enough to make the MPAA and RIAA shudder in fear the next time they decide to hijack the internet through IP enforcement. But the potential for corruption is very high.

i think my concern is that although he may say that he wants to engage with people, when push comes to shove, will he actually take any notice? seen too often people come out with the 'good intentions' only to find that what they want is not only different but far more important to them and much more likely to be done!

Interesting timing

It was just this week that someone made a comment on another thread to the effect that the web has been around long enough now for legacy-industry-behaviours (or Innovator's Dilemma) to start appearing.
This might well be considered to be a manifestation of that effect.

On a related note, where's Paywall Bob and his Big Search commentary? This should be his time to shine!

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Easy to go elsewhere?

Re: Re: Re: Re:

while your point is well made, might want to double check the facts there.

there may or may not have been soldiers involved (i am unsure) but to the best of my knowledge said individuals were NZ law enforcement. meaning they are not SWAT but the Armed Offenders Squad. who are not as heavily armed and who's methods seem to generally involve less shooting and blowing up of things (mostly due to the need for it coming up less, granted) than i understand to be the case with SWAT, but can and do get military backup when necessary. (nothing like an NZLAV to ruin your day. 22.x mm autocannon, anyone?)

Re: divide & conquer

You know, there once was this great Japanese consumer electronics company that rhymes with Boney.

They bought a major copyright cancer thinking they could control it. Instead it ate away at them year by year until that company is now a proponent of DRM and hacking unauthorized rootkits onto your PC in the name of protecting a single audio CD.

Could this work...

I hope it does work, i mean there is so much lobbying by those that want to make money from copyright for themselves and not for the artists, or creators of the content.

If they support copyright as it was first written, which was to prevent big business taking content from someone and using it to make bazillions from it while only paying the artists a pittance, i will then support them.

Re: Re: Re: Easy to go elsewhere?

O.
M.
G.
i'm moving from one house to another, and it will be -like- impossible to track down everyone and tell them i've moved ! ! !
i mean, think of all the utility companies i will have to *TRY* and track down to tell them this... all the companies i do business with who will be puzzled that their junk mail no longer reaches me... how will people know my new phone number ? ? ? sweet geebus, this is totally out of control ! ! !
oh well, guess it is so insurmountable, i just cain't nebber ebber move nowhere's else, no one will be able to figure it out...

oh, and you are a fuckwad, mason jar head...
if you can't stand a gratuitous insult and four-letter words, please get the fuck outta here, pantywaist...
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof

And where will this organization fall on privacy issues?

I'm going to guess that many of these companies will lobby hard against limiting their ability to collect and sell user data. And I am going to guess that if it's up to citizens, users will want to control their own data. I don't anticipate there will be across the board agreement between companies and users about privacy issues.

And I am also going to guess that the companies collecting this data will argue in Washington that they can't make a profit if they don't collect and sell this data. We'll hear the same kinds of arguments as we have heard from big content companies in the past about how they need to be able to sell content or they can't make a living. "Facebook and Google have to do this data collection and work with advertisers or how else will they make any money?"